(PC) Rouser v. Gamboa ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:19-CV-1233-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JULIA GAMBOA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 4, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. See 20 ECF No. 26. The Court outlined Plaintiff’s allegations as follows: 21 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Gamboa; (2) Kennerly; (3) Smith; (4) Marquez; (5) Spangler; (6) Gonzalez; (7) 22 Roth; (8) Weyer; (9) Valencia; (10) Brown; (11) Lelewer; and (12) Montoya. See ECF No. 21. 23 In his Claim I, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Gamboa, Kennerly, Smith, Marquez, and Spangler were aware of Plaintiff’s suicidal 24 ideation and yet did nothing. See id. at 1-2. In Claim II, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Gonzalez, 25 Roth, and Weyer removed him from the mental health program in retaliation for having filed an inmate grievance. See id. at 2-3. 26 In Claim III, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Weyer and Valencia violated his due process rights by not providing impartial review 27 of an inmate grievance. See id. at 3. 28 / / / 1 In Claim IV, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Brown, Lelewer, and Montoya were also aware of Plaintiffs suicidal ideation and 2 did nothing. See id. at 3-4. 3 ECF No. 26, pg. 2. 4 The Court concluded that Plaintiff does not state a claim against Defendants 5 || Weyer or Valencia relating to the prison grievance process (Claim III). See id. at 2-3. Plaintiff 6 || was provided an opportunity to amend and has declined to do so within the time permitted. See 7 | id. at 3-4. The Court, therefore, recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants g | Weyer and Valencia relating to the prison grievance process. Consistent with the Court’s prior 9 || screening order, the Court has directed service on Plaintiff's other claims. 10 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 11 1. Plaintiff's Claim III against Defendants Weyer and Valencia relating to the 12 || prison grievance process be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 13 2. The action proceed on Plaintiff's second amended complaint on the 14 | following claims: 15 a. Claims I and IV against Defendants Gamboa, Kennerly, Smith, Marquez, Spangler, Brown, Lelewer, and Montoya 16 for deliberate indifference relating to Plaintiffs suicidal ideation; 17 b. Claim II against Defendants Gonzalez, Roth, and Weyer 18 for retaliation. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 20 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 21 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 22 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 93 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 24 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 27 DENNIS M. COTA 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE